RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Helpers in Need Helvetic Consensus
present — was intent upon putting obstructions in the way of the new confession and inducing the Swiss to accept the Tetrapolitan Confession (q.v.). In this way Strasburg undoubtedly thought a union of Lutherans and Reformed could more easily be effected, but the result was only that the Swiss promised to examine the Tetrapolitan Confession and not to publish their own. Thus the First Helvetic Confession did not bring about the desired union, in spite of the fact that it contained Lutheranizing formulas; but it cemented the union of the Evangelical cantons of Switzerland, and the new confession formed the basis upon which their later doctrinal discussions rested.
II. The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566 (Con-
fessio Helvetica posterior): This was the work of
Heinrich Bullinger (q.v.), who made
1. Origin the first draft of it in 1562. During and the plague in 1564 he revised and
History, elaborated this sketch, and laid it beside his will, to be presented, in case of his death, to the magistrates of Zurich, as a testimony of his faith. An incident brought it before the public. The Emperor Maximilian II. called a diet to Augsburg, Jan. 14, 1566. As the Electorpalatine Frederick III., who had seceded from the Lutheran and joined the Reformed Church, was afraid that, for this reason, he would be put under the ban of the realm, he addressed himself to Bullinger, and asked him to draw up a confession showing that the Reformed Church in no point differed from the true apostolic doctrine. Bullinger sent him the above-mentioned memoir, and it pleased him so much that he asked permission to have it translated into German and published. Bullinger's work appeared in Mar., 1566, at Zurich, under 'the title Confessio et expositio simplex orthodoxa fidei et dogmatum catholicorum syncerce religionis christians. At the same time there appeared a German edition, a little later a French translation at Geneva, and the confession was translated also into Dutch, English, Hungarian, Polish, Italian, Rumanian, even into Arabic and Turkish. As the origin of the confession excluded the influence of parties and cliques, it soon found approval without compromises, not only in the Swiss Churches, but in all Reformed Churches. The union of Zwinglianism and Calvinism which appears in it was not artificially produced, but was a natural growth. By suppressing many a harsh formula which would have separated the different parties, Bullinger not merely harmonized the Zurich and Genevan theology, but expressed to the satisfaction of all the peculiarly Reformed conception of Christianity. His work was not a compromise in the sense of Lutheran Melanchthonianism; in spite of all its elasticity it retained a sufficiently defined type of Reformed thought.
The order of articles (i.-ii., Scripture; iii.-v., God and worship; vi.-vii., providence and creation; viii.-xi., the fall and preparation of sal- 2. Content. vation;xii.-xvi., appropriation ofsalvation and new life ; xvii.-xxi., Church, sermon, and sacraments; xxii.-xxx., church ordinances, etc.) and the thorough treatment of the ecclesiastical organization show the same Reformed peculiarities
as the first Helvetic confession. The doctrine of predestination avoids with the utmost care every speculative offense. The confession is entirely silent upon the question of reprobation; it shows Bullinger's practical caution which, by cutting off all speculative consequences, clings to the consoling part of the dogma. Election finds unmitigated expression without any synergism. The doctrine of the sacraments is an expansion of the First Helvetic Confession. The rejection of old and new heresies serves an apologetic tendency, by showing that the Reformed could not be classed as heretics (i.e., Anti- Trinitarians), in the sense of the imperial law of Theodosius, while minor deviations of doctrines and forms ought to be tolerated by Evangelical brethren.
(E. F. Karl Muller.)
Bibliography: The text is given in H. A. Niemeyer, Collectio confessionum, Leipsic, 1840; Schaff, Creeds, iii. 211- 306, 829-909 (of First, in Lat. and Germ.; of Second, in Lat. and Eng.); K. Muller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirchen, Leipsic, 1903. For the history consult: Schaff, Creeds, i. 388-420; idem, Christian Church, vii. 219-222; J. J. Hottinger, Helvetische Kirchengeschichte, vol. iii., Zurich, 1708; C. Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, Elberfeld, 1858; K. Muller, Symbolik, Leipsic, 1896; E. Blosch, Geschichte der schweizerisch-reformirten Kirchen, Bern, 1898-99. On the First Confession, besides the above, consult: Sammlung der alteren eidgenossischen Abschiede, iv., i., pp. 598, 616 sqq., 669 sqq., 682 sqq., 784 sqq., Lucerne, 1878; M. Kirchhofer, Oswald Myconius, Zurich, 1813. On the Second, consult: H. A. Niemeyer, ut sup., prolegomena, pp. lxiii.-lxviii. ; L. Thomas, La Confession helvetique, Geneva, 1853.
HELVETIC CONSENSUS (Formula consensus ecclesiarum Helveticarum): The name of a Swiss
Reformed symbol drawn up in 1675 Origin. to guard against doctrines taught at
the French academy of Saumur. The strict and uncompromising definition of the doctrines of election and reprobation by the Synod of Dort (1618-19) occasioned a reaction in France, where the Protestants lived surrounded by Roman Catholics. Moi'se Amyraut (q.v.), professor at Saumur, taught a hypothetical or conditioned universalism. His colleague, Louis Cappel, denied the verbal inspiration of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament; La Place rejected the immediate imputation of Adam's sin as arbitrary and unjust. The famous and flourishing school of Saumur came to be looked upon with increasing mistrust as the seat of heterodoxy, especially by the Swiss, who were in the habit of sending students there. The first impulse to attack the new doctrine came from Geneva. In 1635 Friedrich Spanheim (q.v.) wrote against Amyraut, whom the clergy of Paris tried to defend. In course of time the heresy of Amyraut gained ground in Geneva. In 1649, Alexander Morus, the successor of Spanheim, but suspected of belonging to the liberal party, was compelled by the magistrates of Geneva to subscribe to a series of articles in the form of theses and antitheses, the first germ of the Formula consensus. His place was taken by Philippe Mestrezat, and later by Louis Trouchin, both inclined toward the liberal tendency of France, while Francois Turretin zealously defended the orthodox system. Mestrezat induced the Council of Geneva to take a moderate standpoint in the article on election, but the other cantons
Helvetic Consensus Hemerli